Pressing principles, and reactive formations- a trial in FM

[Flußkrebs]

PART 1- BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Football is very much a game of fashion, as is football manager and the tactics we use here. A couple of years ago it was all the rage to try and replicate teams like Atalanta, with their unique playing style, Sheffield United's overlapping centre-backs (now easily doable, and ironically something I very rarely see employed), or Bielsa's 3331. 

What often get mentioned when doing a run down of Bielsa (usually as a bit of fluff before going on to show the 3331 tactic itself) was the pressing principle he'd employ. The mantra was:

"+1 at the back, -1 in attack".

What this means in practice is that for any given formation you can create a reciprocal formation which matches all players up man for man, except 1 spare at the back and 1 spare in attack. Now usually because football formation notation isn't actually what the players look like on the pitch, it might not be immediate obvious what the reciprocal is (e.g. we switch between calling it a 352 or a 532, but never really do the same when talking about a 433 vs a 2323). So the reciprocal also depends on whether the opponents 343 is with strikers (343), AMs (3421), or wingers (3421 wide).

But here is a rough list of reciprocal formations for the more commonly seen formations:

OPPONENT FORMATION	BIELSA RECIPROCAL
3142	3412
3412	3142
3421	4222
343	442
442	343
4231	4123
4123	4231
41212	3331
4312	3151
4141	4411
424	523
4222	3421

 

Obviously in FM we can differentiate further and draw the distinction between a 3142, a 3312 WB DM, a 352 with a CM-d, a 532 with a CM-d, but I've mostly just stuck to the general shape which is basically the same regardless. 

Some may not be super obvious how they match up. For example a 3421 is really quite tricky to match up against, as you need to provide a 4 man midfield, but with only 2 centre backs. Below, Red uses a 4222 shape to oppose Black's 3421. There are a couple of ways you could do this, but using aggressive full backs in a 4222 seems most logical. Alternatively you could use a 442 shape and invert your full backs onto their AMs, OR your wingers onto their DMs. Like I said, it is a bit tricky.

 

The neat thing about the Bielsa principle is it means every single formation has a "natural match up" and that in theory both teams should have cover in defence, whilst otherwise matching up nearly perfectly to press the opponent. This principle is only employed because Bielsa uses strict man-to-man marking. The spare man is therefore necessary to mop up any slippages, and the striker or strikers have to press in such a way to get theh defence to clear long where any other player on the pitch is man marked.

Weaknesses with this approach of course are that there is a spare man for the opponent at the back, so strong ball carrying centre-backs can march unopposed through the middle. 

However, there is a different trend for high-pressing teams- going man-for-man all over the pitch. By this, I don't mean strict man-marking, but rather the set up zonally of the players in such a way that a team trying to play out from the back will always face pressure, and there are no overloads or spare men naturally in the set up.

For example, against a team which plays a 433, builds in a 2323 shape like Black below, you'd want to press with a front 2 against their centre-backs, and then 3 behind to press the DM and full backs.

Red here are playing in a 3412 shape, ish. Obviously you might not need the wide-centre backs to stay that wide, man-marking, and instead they can shuttle across to the ball side, but the front 3 plus the wingbacks would need to press high.

Alternatively, you could achieve the same by playing with a 442 diamond or 41212, dropping the DM back to cover the striker and playing with very high full-backs and wide centre-backs.

Here is one more example, going back to the first. Black are playing in a 3421 shape again. Instead of the Bielsa 4222, when Red use man-for-man pressing they form a 325 shape:

This could be achieved using a 343 base with strikers, or a 3421 and pushing the AMs on, or a 343 wide and inverting the wingers. 

Here is a list of more reciprocal formations (I've included the Bielsa one's for reference).

OPPONENT FORMATION	MAN FOR MAN PRESS	M4M Translation	BIELSA RECIPROCAL
3142	2413	4231 or 442 or 424	3412
3412	2143	4123	3142
3421	1243	343	4222
343	343	343	442
442	244	424 or 442	343
4231	1324	3142	4123
4123	3214	3412	4231
41212	21214	3412 (CB on DM) or 41212	3331
4312	2134	3412 or 4132	3151
4141	1414	3214 or 3412	4411
424	424	424 or 442	523
4222	2224	4222 or 442	3421

 

NB. My "translation" column is non-exhaustative- you could press in a column 2 shape by using a different set formation.

My objective in FM is to build a set of formations which can be tweaked in such a way to cover ALL possibilities in that second column. 

To achieve this, I'll use a:

- Flat 433 wide

- Flat 352

- 424

In part 2, I'll show the formations and base tactics, and see how they work out. There will be some trial and error, and it might be the case that trying to create tweaks to only 3 base formations is too ambitious, and whilst the press may work, the attacking elements let it down. I'll then do some comparisons against the Bielsa reciprocal formation, playing out the same matches, and seeing if either offers a stronger defense/press/attack.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Flußkrebs

[SpecialOne Miko]

Interesting. Looking forward to it.

[Robson 07]

Does this not simply highlight Bielsa as a reactive coach?   Someone whose primary concern is stopping the opposition alongside tenets for organisation and hard running?  His Leeds side had little in the way of actual creativity and when they were eventually exhausted - which was always inevitable - the results fell away.   Isn't that the pattern of his career?  Sometime squads reject his methods but those who do buy-in only last a season or two before injuries and fatigue sees form dry up & capitulate and he then leaves.  

[vrig]

Really cool idea. 

I'm surprised you haven't opted for a flat 343 as one of your base formations, since that would give you coverage against both 343s and the relatively common 442 diamond and its variants.

I'd imagine if you used a 451, 352, 442, and a 343 (all flat), you could quite comfortable match up any formation in the game using roles, duties, and marking instructions. Some creativity would be needed facing a Brazilian box formation, but aside from that the matchups would be straightforward. 

But that's where the pesky limit of 3 slots gets you I suppose! 

Certain roles are sure to end up being leaned on a fair bit for this approach. You mentioned the wide centre back already of course, but I could envisage the defensive winger being crucial for its ability to really chase after opposition fullbacks in support, or track wingers effectively on a defend duty.

[frukox]

3 saat önce, Flußkrebs said:

PART 1- BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Football is very much a game of fashion, as is football manager and the tactics we use here. A couple of years ago it was all the rage to try and replicate teams like Atalanta, with their unique playing style, Sheffield United's overlapping centre-backs (now easily doable, and ironically something I very rarely see employed), or Bielsa's 3331. 

What often get mentioned when doing a run down of Bielsa (usually as a bit of fluff before going on to show the 3331 tactic itself) was the pressing principle he'd employ. The mantra was:

"+1 at the back, -1 in attack".

What this means in practice is that for any given formation you can create a reciprocal formation which matches all players up man for man, except 1 spare at the back and 1 spare in attack. Now usually because football formation notation isn't actually what the players look like on the pitch, it might not be immediate obvious what the reciprocal is (e.g. we switch between calling it a 352 or a 532, but never really do the same when talking about a 433 vs a 2323). So the reciprocal also depends on whether the opponents 343 is with strikers (343), AMs (3421), or wingers (3421 wide).

But here is a rough list of reciprocal formations for the more commonly seen formations:

OPPONENT FORMATION	BIELSA RECIPROCAL
3142	3412
3412	3142
3421	4222
343	442
442	343
4231	4123
4123	4231
41212	3331
4312	3151
4141	4411
424	523
4222	3421

 

Obviously in FM we can differentiate further and draw the distinction between a 3142, a 3312 WB DM, a 352 with a CM-d, a 532 with a CM-d, but I've mostly just stuck to the general shape which is basically the same regardless. 

Some may not be super obvious how they match up. For example a 3421 is really quite tricky to match up against, as you need to provide a 4 man midfield, but with only 2 centre backs. Below, Red uses a 4222 shape to oppose Black's 3421. There are a couple of ways you could do this, but using aggressive full backs in a 4222 seems most logical. Alternatively you could use a 442 shape and invert your full backs onto their AMs, OR your wingers onto their DMs. Like I said, it is a bit tricky.

 

The neat thing about the Bielsa principle is it means every single formation has a "natural match up" and that in theory both teams should have cover in defence, whilst otherwise matching up nearly perfectly to press the opponent. This principle is only employed because Bielsa uses strict man-to-man marking. The spare man is therefore necessary to mop up any slippages, and the striker or strikers have to press in such a way to get theh defence to clear long where any other player on the pitch is man marked.

Weaknesses with this approach of course are that there is a spare man for the opponent at the back, so strong ball carrying centre-backs can march unopposed through the middle. 

However, there is a different trend for high-pressing teams- going man-for-man all over the pitch. By this, I don't mean strict man-marking, but rather the set up zonally of the players in such a way that a team trying to play out from the back will always face pressure, and there are no overloads or spare men naturally in the set up.

For example, against a team which plays a 433, builds in a 2323 shape like Black below, you'd want to press with a front 2 against their centre-backs, and then 3 behind to press the DM and full backs.

Red here are playing in a 3412 shape, ish. Obviously you might not need the wide-centre backs to stay that wide, man-marking, and instead they can shuttle across to the ball side, but the front 3 plus the wingbacks would need to press high.

Alternatively, you could achieve the same by playing with a 442 diamond or 41212, dropping the DM back to cover the striker and playing with very high full-backs and wide centre-backs.

Here is one more example, going back to the first. Black are playing in a 3421 shape again. Instead of the Bielsa 4222, when Red use man-for-man pressing they form a 325 shape:

This could be achieved using a 343 base with strikers, or a 3421 and pushing the AMs on, or a 343 wide and inverting the wingers. 

Here is a list of more reciprocal formations (I've included the Bielsa one's for reference).

OPPONENT FORMATION	MAN FOR MAN PRESS	M4M Translation	BIELSA RECIPROCAL
3142	2413	4231 or 442 or 424	3412
3412	2143	4123	3142
3421	1243	343	4222
343	343	343	442
442	244	424 or 442	343
4231	1324	3142	4123
4123	3214	3412	4231
41212	21214	3412 (CB on DM) or 41212	3331
4312	2134	3412 or 4132	3151
4141	1414	3214 or 3412	4411
424	424	424 or 442	523
4222	2224	4222 or 442	3421

 

NB. My "translation" column is non-exhaustative- you could press in a column 2 shape by using a different set formation.

My objective in FM is to build a set of formations which can be tweaked in such a way to cover ALL possibilities in that second column. 

To achieve this, I'll use a:

- Flat 433 wide

- Flat 352

- 424

In part 2, I'll show the formations and base tactics, and see how they work out. There will be some trial and error, and it might be the case that trying to create tweaks to only 3 base formations is too ambitious, and whilst the press may work, the attacking elements let it down. I'll then do some comparisons against the Bielsa reciprocal formation, playing out the same matches, and seeing if either offers a stronger defense/press/attack.

I also do this kind of stuff if I don't go for an all-in-one approach like Cleon. Let me give you an example:

Imagine I am playing against a 3-4-2-1. The only formation I can match them and outplay them truly is 4-4-2 narrow diamond. How? They have 3 defenders; I have two forwards. They have one forward; I have two defenders. I always have an extra player to press and defend better. My only caveat would be to know how to distribute roles and duties in accordance with your tactical style and your players. Remember they don't have to be perfect. I safely play a left-footed inside forward as a full-back or a wing-back as long as he has what I need from him, e.g. speed, diligence and passing ability as well as a slight will to get stuck in when needed. 

Here, the number 5 can play the ball to the DM to bypass the press even if the opposition WB comes out to press the number 3. Then, it gives us a clear way to start a perfect attack.

Edited December 15, 2022 by frukox

[The3points]

5 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Does this not simply highlight Bielsa as a reactive coach?   Someone whose primary concern is stopping the opposition alongside tenets for organisation and hard running?  His Leeds side had little in the way of actual creativity and when they were eventually exhausted - which was always inevitable - the results fell away.   Isn't that the pattern of his career?  Sometime squads reject his methods but those who do buy-in only last a season or two before injuries and fatigue sees form dry up & capitulate and he then leaves.  

I don't think Bielsa is a reactive coach per se. I think he's so intent of being proactive on the pitch that he does anything to reach that level of control, and that translates to reactivity of study and training.

[Robson 07]

I would hate to play for him.  You'd want a coach to focus on how you as individual can make a creative impact on the game, and not be detailed with stopping your direct opponent.  He's obsessed with the opposition to the point of training ground spying - see Derby County controversy.  I just see a reactive and overhyped coach.  

[Angus Osborne]

6 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Does this not simply highlight Bielsa as a reactive coach?   Someone whose primary concern is stopping the opposition alongside tenets for organisation and hard running?  His Leeds side had little in the way of actual creativity and when they were eventually exhausted - which was always inevitable - the results fell away.   Isn't that the pattern of his career?  Sometime squads reject his methods but those who do buy-in only last a season or two before injuries and fatigue sees form dry up & capitulate and he then leaves.  

Looking at your team you're possibly not looking at it objectively (but then neither am I).

Bielsa is a beautiful man, but by no means a perfect coach. His Leeds played some wonderful football, beyond their apparent talent. The "inevitable" exhaustion had an awful lot do with his extreme fussiness over buying new players and rotating the squad. Maybe there's a perfect DoF somewhere who could overcome that, but I think Victor Orta did as well as anyone ever has.

So basically I agree with everything you said except the creativity comment :-) Leeds fans will never love another manager who loses 6-3 to Man Utd a hundredth as much as we love Bielsa

Edited December 15, 2022 by Angus Osborne

[Angus Osborne]

56 minutes ago, Robson 07 said:

I would hate to play for him.  You'd want a coach to focus on how you as individual can make a creative impact on the game, and not be detailed with stopping your direct opponent.  He's obsessed with the opposition to the point of training ground spying - see Derby County controversy.  I just see a reactive and overhyped coach.  

 ... but this. Try watching football rather than reading the headlines on the back page of the Daily Mail.

[Angus Osborne]

I started doing in this in previous versions of FM (but haven't really done it in FM23). Setting up the man-marking properly is too much work for me in FM, but I think the basic principle of -1 in attack and +1 in defence works really well with a pressing style. I used to fudge it a bit and use a HB or DM(D) instead of a third centre defender

[Robson 07]

Just now, Angus Osborne said:

 ... but this. Try watching football rather than reading the headlines on the back page of the Daily Mail.

Who buys the Daily Mail?  I think the guy is great character, and a better than average coach with ideas.  But there is an aura around him when unfortunately those ideas are now stale, the game is moving on. He seems to have had a ceiling everywhere he goes.   Reacting to the opposition only gets you so far. 

[Aoyao]

Interesting. Looking forward to it.

[Andros]

Perhaps I am overcomplicating things, but wouldn't roles and duties really affect your decisions?

 

For example:

If the opposition are running a 4-3-3 -

Without thinking of roles then you might look to control the front 3 with the 2 CBs and the FBs to have +1.  But if the roles are something like this:

Then maybe you might make some other decisions, like make the DM responsible for the F9, have the 2CBs responsible for the IFA and create the +1 in another way (maybe another CB).  obviously this would be further impacted by what the opposition midfield and FBs are doing.

My concern is if you just focus on formation then you may have a similar situation to what happened to Leeds vs Man Utd where a few Man Utd players pulling Leeds players out of position meant the Man Utd team could run riot.  Maybe getting a skin that shows the opposition roles and duties (whilst maybe cheating) can help you refine this.

But like I said, maybe I am overcomplicating what you are trying to do here.

[_mxrky]

Problem with this is. Full back don’t press full backs on this games properly